Replies to post #123400 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[jimmenknee]

Based on communications with the Enforcement staff, the Company believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s subsequently restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010. The restatement concerned the Company’s valuation of media credits, accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances.

Voluntarily is not identified in the filing, so it isn't a matter of lying. The key here is the use/placement of the 2 words: subsequently restated

The actual sentence should read without those 2 words: "that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010."

Subsequent is an "after the fact" adjective, the positioning in the sentence reads as if the issues are based on the restatement, when the issues are based on the originals.

Voluntarily or prompted by an investigation (perhaps informal at the time)? When did the 1st communication over the filings take place? According to this study (admitted to not be OTC-based), the average time spent investigating until a Wells Notice is given covers the date JBI issued the "non-reliance" 8K

http://www.cornerstone.com/files/Publication/ba7aac8e-a3f1-4c02-9df7-66070a705859/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/32bca512-fc69-4622-b5c6-6b938d8e2b4c/Disclosures_of_SEC_Investigations.pdf

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390010002134/f8k051910_jbi.htm